This is something that has been bothering me for a while. Recently the attention given to this matter has risen to a level worthy of discussion, so here it is: why are people so disgusted by corporate air travel? When GM, Ford and Chrysler CEOs went to Washington for hearings few weeks ago, no one could stop talking about the fact that they each took corporate jet to D.C. for the hearing. There was nothing but outrage and indignation at the fact that these execs were begging for money but were "wasting" tens of thousands on corporate air travel. How arrogant that they can't travel commercial along with the rest of us sacrificing peons without stock options. At the very least, don't they have a PR person whispering in their ear that it would look bad?
This bothers me because people are very willing to quickly attack that which offends their personal sensibility without even so much as asking for a reason, nevermind actually hearing the justification. I'll bet you didn't hear any of those reporters or commentators actually check into the costs of flying private. Corporate jets are a modern day business necessity and a bargain to boot. Say what? Yes, you read correctly- a bargain. Say your average CEO gets paid about $23 million per year*. If he/she works 300 days per year, 10 hours per day (not an unusual CEO work load by any means), it works out to $7,600 per hour of their time. Now consider that a roundtrip corporate flight from Detroit to D.C. would save at least 4 hours of the CEO's time, the corporate jet saved over $30,000. What about the cost? Depending on the service and the plane in use, private air travel costs $1,000 to $3,000 per hour of flight time. On this Detroit to D.C. roundtrip of 3.5 hrs, this trip would cost about $11,000 (on the most expensive plan). Hmmm...an $11k expenditure to save $30k- looks like a good deal to me.
But wait, there's more. There are certain perks to private flights that I didn't quantify above. There is the ability to arrange, on very short notice, the trip times. Compare that to a commercial flight- when are the available flights? Are there any first class seats left? Once at the mercy of a commercial flight schedule, you now have to extend the trip at least an additional night, perhaps two- so as to be absolutely sure you don't miss the meeting while accomodating the commercial flight schedule. Taking a senior executive, lawyer or others along with you? They travel at no extra cost when flying private, but each one is at least another $1,000 round trip commercial flight. Plus their hotels. Perhaps $4,000-$8,000 in additional savings?
Then there are a few of the less quantifiable benefits such not being harassed should you be recognized in the airport. The privacy to work, talk, strategize, and make calls enroute. The chance to rest, think, and prepare. The ability to arrive unwrinkled and fed. No lost luggage or trying to stow your awkward carryon. Knowing you won't be delayed because the crew didn't arrive from another flight or that if there is a mechanical problem, a replacement plane will be ready within 2 hours max.
I am aware this all sounds elitist, but the math alone pays for the expense. The elitist perks make the expense all the more productive. Yet people get all worked up over this "obvious" corporate excess. We aren't talking about private chefs in the executive dining room or even golf club memberships. These private flights make executives far more productive and are cost effective- meeting every accountant's definition of money wisely used. Despite fears of appearing to lavish CEO's, corporate jets have become widespread across all of corporate America because of their utility and cost effectiveness. As discussed previously, if people are outraged over CEO treatment, they ought to take legitimate gripes about ridiculous pay to the Board of Directors. Just because popular culture depicts private flights as the purview of the elite, rich and famous does not mean they are a case of burning $1,000 bills. Attacking the corporate jet is an appeal to emotion rather than evidence based criticism.
Ironically, all three Detroit auto CEO's say they won't return to D.C. this week by private plane. Ford CEO Mulally will drive the 521 miles each way. At nearly 9 hours each way, how much will that extra 15 hours cost Ford? When the others (presumably) fly commercial and book first class flights for three execs ($4,000) and hotels for each exec for extra two nights ($1,500), the difference is a mere $4,000 without even considering the value of anyone's time or condition. Better PR and $4,000 saved. Caving into Congressional/media pressure: priceless.
*I chose $23 million as a pay example because this is what Alan Mulally, Ford's CEO, was paid in 2007 including stock options. His cash pay was around $5 million. Lest you think the mathematical justification is based on outrages compensation, using a more palatable CEO pay figure of $5 million yields an hourly cost of about $1,667- still easily a mathematically justifiable expense given all the many reasons to fly private.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your argument is based on a very shaky premise - that a CEO is worth $23 million a year. That jet is only a bargain because the passenger is hideously overpaid.
ReplyDeleteWhoops, missed the last sentence. Still, even $5 million a year is more than any human being should earn.
ReplyDelete1) The entire premise of this post is that it makes business sense to fly a private plane to DC. Obviously it does not in this context. Your calculations to show the amount GM or Ford saved do not reflect the reality that this PR blunder put at serious political risk the bail-out they were asking for. If the business of the day was getting a government bail-out, clearly this move made little-to-no business sense. To face a greater risk of bankruptcy and to damage your stock price because of this PR blunder clearly illustrates that it was not a mathematically justifiable expense.
ReplyDelete2) The CEOs could have elected to fly together, in one plane. It would have looked more humble.
3) The attention given to the issue is a little populist and stupid, yes. But it is also stupid to fly into DC without a plan for financial solvency, and it is ridiculous to not consider the PR implications when asking that "P" for $25,000,000,000.
Another consequence of this unfortunate situation with the automotive CEOs is the impact it is having on the reputation of general aviation. These stories are taking attention away from the numerous small businesses and rural communities that rely on small aircraft for travel, supplies, and medical care. With more and more rural areas losing their commercial service, general aviation is the only way many of these communities can stay afloat.
ReplyDeleterizzuhjj,
ReplyDelete1) I do allude to the idea that PR would have been much better had they thought of the repercussions beforehand. In this instance, I agree that in hindsight the cost/benefit is bad because of the bailout pushback. Yet you say they had no plan when they came to Congress. Are the private flights the bad decision here or the fact they are incompetent execs with no plans in the first place? I think the flights are a way to exhort disgust that the execs were there are all, particularly there unprepared. The flights were not an issue until Congress/media made it an issue. No one complained about the flights until they landed in D.C., without a plan (to your point#3). So, is it that the flights caused a PR mess which tanked their bailout prospects causing the flights to be highly uneconomical. OR that their lack of any plans caused ire which caused an attack on the flights. I think the latter. (That they had no plan was evident before they even got to D.C.) Had they been prepared, would the flights would have been mentioned at all?
An aside- how much public money do Congresspeople waste every day? The hypocrisy is astounding, IMO.
2) CEO competitors flying together?! Surely you joke. Would Gates and Jobs share a flight? The DOJ would have them for antitrust. (I'm being mostly facetious here).
3) I wholeheartedly agree having no plan was pure idiocy.
I will concede that while the chastising of Detroit's flights prompted my post, my intent was to point out the economics and usefulness of private flights in general and that people are very willing to quickly attack that which offends their personal sensibility without even so much as asking for a justification. In all the media reports I heard, the charge was that they took private flights, with an intonation that implied this was some sort of extravagant executive perk and a wholly unjustified practice economically- which isn't true.
Brett, your cost analysis is missing a crucial component. While I'm willing to spot you the price difference between a the private jets versus a commercial flight, you neglect the fact that the private jets had to be paid for in the first place, stored at the airfields in Detroit, and maintained at corporate expense.
ReplyDeleteThat would change the numbers, I think.
benjcano, actually those costs are rolled into the hourly cost now. There are many different programs and traditionally a company would actually own the plane, pay the pilots, etc. That has changed in the last decade. Now you can buy flight time with no strings attached. Some programs require you to buy the jet, but the maintenace, storage, etc is all rolled into the hourly cost because they use your plane for other clients when you aren't using it. Like a time share. Some programs require no asset purchase, simply the hourly cost. Because each program is different, the cost per hour varies considerably, but is usually in the range I quoted.
ReplyDeleteReaders may find this interesting: Warren Buffett bought NetJets a few years ago because the economics of the offering were so compelling for both the users and the operator, he knew it was a good business. Keep in mind that Buffett is famous for chastising corporate excess.
I'm calling a logical fallacy here - non sequitur. Just because Warren Buffett chastises corporate excess doesn't mean he is unwilling to profit from it.
ReplyDeletejrpowell- fair enough. It is an anecdote only, but I thought it was interesting. Although he rarely buys into large businesses if he doesn't think it is sustainable. He chastised exec comp and actively promotes the reforms to reign in abuses. I don't know for sure, but I doubt he would invest in something he thinks will face trouble. Maybe he thinks exec comp and treatment will continue to escalate forever? He has pointed out that corporate margins, leverage and other anomalies in the economy are likely to mean revert. If that happens (and it has), it ought to curtail use of jets- unless their utility is great enough to justify. Still just an anecdote and an argument from authority, but I find the logic (as I read it) compelling.
ReplyDeleteThe point remains: based on pay, time and conditions, corporate flights are economical and productive. If you feel CEO's are overpaid or they should not have such privaleges, that doesn't change the utility of it. These are different issues: whether the flights make sense under current conditions and whether compensation is fair or appropriate.